METHODIST CHURCH DISPLAYS VIRGIN OF GUADALUPE

Spirit Daily ^ | December 12, 2004 | Mike Brown

[NYer]

The Chicago Tribune reports that when some members of Amor de Dios United Methodist Church in an area called Little Village elected to move a statue of the Virgin of Guadalupe into the sanctuary last year, "the icon spawned an exodus."

Turned off by the introduction of a Roman Catholic tradition to a Protestant congregation, most of the church's 15 founding parishioners drifted away. To them, venerating the Virgin Mary and reciting the rosary did not belong in a Methodist church.

But this is part of a trend nationwide: mainline Protestant churches and even some evangelical ones (in places like California, with a strong Mexican populace) are accepting the veneration of statues, which for decades has been misinterpreted as idolatry. Pastors of other Hispanic Methodist congregations objected too. Meanwhile, and curiously,

Roman Catholics in the neighborhood fret that the church might be selling itself as something it was not.

"Rev. Jose Landaverde allowed the statue to stay," reports the newspaper. "He says he sees no harm in embracing a tradition--the Virgin is an unofficial national symbol of Mexico--that might bring people closer to God. 'It's coming from the people, which is the real presence of the Holy Spirit,' said Landaverde, 31, a student pastor from Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary. 'You cannot bring theological debates to the people when they need spiritual assistance.'"

The Tribune reports that this month, parishioners celebrated their first novena in honor of the Virgin of Guadalupe by parading the two-foot-high statue around the neighborhood, singing songs and reciting the rosary. "About two dozen parishioners weathered the chill each night to deliver the statue to a different living room, where it was surrounded by garland, twinkling lights, roses and poinsettias. On Sunday, parishioners will commence the traditional Feast Day for the Virgin of Guadalupe and, through prayers, mariachi music, drama and dancing, pay homage. 'The Virgin understands our suffering and she accompanies us everywhere we go,' said church member Oscar Hernandez, who grew up Roman Catholic in El Salvador but now considers himself a Methodist. 'We don't want to take away the faith that this community has, but we want to nourish it.'"

The parish council discerned that something was missing--the Virgin of Guadalupe.

"Since I was little, it's always been right to have the Virgin Mary in the church," said Olivia Serrato, 40, one of the original parishioners who decided to stay after the Virgin was introduced. "It's now a great honor to bring the Virgin Mary to my Methodist church. Before I didn't feel complete."
 

[The Grammarian]

Of course not. We don't worship Christ because he's the icon of the Father. We worship Christ because of who he is. It's the fact that Jesus is fully divine in himself that makes him worship-worthy.

But what Paul is driving at in this passage is that Christ is "the image of the invisible God" because it is "by Him all things were created, both in the heavens on on earth," etc., and "all things have been created by Him and for Him." In other words, Christ is the "image" of God because he IS God--"He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). If Christ is to be worshiped because he is the "icon" of the Father, then why not worship other icons? Given your prooftext, we worship an icon, right? Why not worship all icons?

On the other hand, perhaps "icons" really are the things they represent, just as Christ is the "icon" of God and is therefore God?

Suppose on Mt. Sinai, instead of writing the Law with his own finger on tablets of stone, God had written a carved or painted image. Would it have been worship-worthy? Not on your life, any more than stone tablets or the Bible is. When we venerate (not "adore"! not "worship"!) sacred images, we are not venerating wood or paint or anything that resides in the image. Our veneration passes to the prototype for whom it's intended. When you gaze lovingly on a photo of someone special in your life, is your love directed at paper and chemicals or for the person they represent?

You're the one who tried to say that even Protestants worship Christ, the "Icon" (image) of the Father.

[The Grammarian]

This is likely clear from the rule you have quoted from John Wesley. But I have a question. I assume that Wesley did not think he was creating an entirely new and previously unheard of religion when Methodism was established. If I am correct, it appears that your 14th Article is in direct contradiction to the decision of the 7th Ecumenical Council, which was a council of the entire One Church, cited earlier. It would seem to be the enactment in your 25 Articles of a point of positive heresy. Far from being a "Romish" doctrine, this was a statement of dogma of the One Church in the persons of mostly Eastern bishops and the Empress. Would John Wesley have been aware of this (I assume he was as he was an educated man) and how did he deal with this apparent heresy? If he knowingly rejected this dogma proclaimed by the council, why and what other dogmas did he reject and on what basis. Thanks.

The Methodist 25 Articles of Religion are the direct descendant of the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. Wesley was an Anglican priest who never wanted Methodists--originally a sort of 'religious society' within the Church of England--to separate. In America, the situation changed after the Revolutionary War enough that he believed the Methodists in America were not being spiritually shepherded by the often-hostile Anglican priests in the country. So he drew up the 25 Articles from the Anglican 39, and sent Rev. Dr. Thomas Coke to America to form a new church with Francis Asbury out of the existing Methodists--the Methodist Episcopal Church, from which the present-day United Methodist Church traces its lineage.

So the better question is, why did the Anglicans come up with Article 14 (the numbers of indivudal articles may be different between the 25 Articles and the 39 Articles, but you get what I mean)? I don't have an in-depth answer, but suffice it to say that Protestants as a rule (including Anglicans) don't accept the Ecumenical Councils past the 4th, if even that many.

[Kolokotronis]

Thanks for the response. I have pinged sinnosar for a response to my question. Thank-you also for prompting me to finally read the Anglican Articles. Sionnsar, please take a look at my post 140 and Grammarian's reply. Thanks.

"I don't have an in-depth answer, but suffice it to say that Protestants as a rule (including Anglicans) don't accept the Ecumenical Councils past the 4th, if even that many."

Do you know why this is?

[xzins]

You'll be glad to know that Sprague retired this last year and is no longer a bishop anywhere.

He was replaced by a Korean (naturalized American) named Yung (?), who is getting his feet wet, and it appears he, too, might be an oddball.

[xzins]

Would John Wesley have been aware of this (I assume he was as he was an educated man) and how did he deal with this apparent heresy?

John Wesley was an Anglican priest in the tradition of the Reformation. He, therefore, followed the principle of Sola Scriptura, and with the other parts of the reformation, would not have found the practices of veneration, adoration of relics in the bible, and would, therefore, have found it acceptable to throw those practices overboard.

While Wesley had considerable disagreements theologically with his own calvinistic wing of his own movement, they nonetheless had these things in common.

He would have considered any practice approved by any council that proclaimed anything not provable by scripture as a non-binding or invalid practice.

[xzins]

Do you know why this is?

I believe it's standard procedure for the reformation era....that was when they believed undo influence by a Roman religio-governmental system began to compromise pure Christianity

Remember as well that the diversion of the Anglican church in a reformation direction took place, not under Henry VIII as many suppose, but under Elizabeth I. England was restored to Roman Catholicism by Mary following Henry's death. Succeeding Mary, Elizabeth turned Henry's pique into historic policy.

[Kolokotronis]

Thanks for the information. I suspected that it was Reformation type thinking, especially as late as Wesley, which lead to this, but I didn't realize that that type of thinking was as strong in Elizabethan England. Throwing over some of the doctrines of the Ecumenical Councils has always struck me as very odd, especially in light of the correspondence between the Lutheran Divines just after Luther with the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople where it appears they thought they were throwing out "Romish" practices and this would please the Patriarch. They seemed surprised to find that much of what they thought was "Romish" turned out to be conciliar, but they went ahead anyway and tried to convince the Patriarch of the validity of their positions, after a bit of regrouping. Eventually he told them to go in peace and leave him alone.

What I am taking from this, aside from the obvious, is that the Reformation really was a complete break with the prior practices of the Church, East or West and thus was an even more earth shattering event than I had suspected. Thanks again for the information!

[TexasGreg]

I know this is an older thread, but I just now saw this and wanted to make a few remarks. I am an ordained United Methodist minister. Methodist bishops mostly just move preachers around every two years.

Methodist Bishops do far more than move clergy around: Bishops are responsible for the spiritual lives of their clergy, for ensuring they are properly trained, and for ordaining them (for, in the UMC, only a Bishop may ordain). Bishops have many other duties, including presidential and teaching authority.

As for clergy tenures, we tend to stay longer than 2 years. In my Conference the average stay is now about 6 years.

I think they still confirm the kids, but it's just not a big deal. They waffle on infant baptism as well.

What in the world are you reading that would lead you to think such is the case? The UMC is hardly "waffling" on Infant Baptism. Quite the contrary, in fact. As for confirmation, it is a very "big deal." Perhaps you're thinking about the UMC of the 1940s or 1950s??

Do you know if they still communicate just once a month? Last I heard that's all they did.

Frequency of partaking in Holy Communion will depend upon the congregation. Many celebrate the Eucharist only once a month, but many others offer Communion more frequently. For example, in my congregation the Sacrament of Holy Communion is celebrated in the mornings on the 1st and 3rd Sundays, and in the evenings on the 2nd and 4th Sundays.

[TexasGreg]

I understand that this thread is old, but I've been directed here and asked to post a link to the United Methodist Communion Liturgy. For any who might be interested in seeing what the primary Eucharistic Liturgy in the UMC looks like, here it is:

http://www.revneal.org/communionlit1.html

[AnAmericanMother]

One branch of our family is Methodist. My grandfather in law was a Methodist minister for something like 65 years (he died in his 90s). Probably my notions on the practices of the church derive in large part from his probably rather old-fashioned Southern Methodist habits (so your 40s & 50s weren't far off.) I will say that he was a saint, I'm glad I was privileged to know him, and I hope he's putting a good word in for us with St. Peter . . . he always stayed on good terms with his counterparts in other denominations so hopefully he will stand by us Catholics . . .

I will say that the North Georgia Conference still plays "musical ministers" to an alarming degree. When my Aunt was buried up in Rome GA, she had been an active member of her church for upwards of 75 years, but all the poor preacher who conducted her funeral could say is that he heard she was a pillar of the church . . . she had been ill for his entire tenure, which at the time of her death was less than six months. We all felt sorry for him . . . wasn't his fault.

And when your frame of reference is daily communication as an ideal and once every Sunday as a minimum requirement, four times a month just doesn't seem like much. < g >

[TexasGreg]

And when your frame of reference is daily communication as an ideal and once every Sunday as a minimum requirement, four times a month just doesn't seem like much. < g >

I understand. What many United Methodists have been striving to recover -- i.e., weekly communion as a norm rather than an exception -- would be the barest minimum for you. Hey ... it's far superior to the mid-20th-century norm of once a month (or, even worse, once a quarter). In 15 years of active, ordained ministry (in North Carolina and North Texas) I have never served as the pastor of a church where the Eucharist was offered only once a quarter, but I've heard of such congregations. Based upon a study I saw in the mid 1990s it would appear that nearly 60% of all UM churches offer the Eucharist once a month, while about 40% offer the Eucharist more frequently than once a month. Those that offer the Eucharist less frequently than once a month comprise less than 1% of our churches, world wide. In 1997 nearly 20% of UM congregations made Holy Communion available every Sunday in at least one service. Based upon my own experience, I would guess that the figure is closer to 25% by now. I know, for my own part, that I've taken two UM churches from once a month to every Sunday.

[RnMomof7]

But this is part of a trend nationwide: mainline Protestant churches and even some evangelical ones (in places like California, with a strong Mexican populace) are accepting the veneration of statues, which for decades has been misinterpreted as idolatry. Pastors of other Hispanic Methodist congregations objected too. Meanwhile, and curiously,

I will bet not one that comes from the Reformation . We still do not do icons ...

It would not be a surprise in the counter reformation churches.. they have always been on the way back to Rome.

Merry Christmas NYer hope our ice does not head your way !

[NYer]

Merry Christmas NYer hope our ice does not head your way !

Welcome back!, Mom. Haven't seen you around the forum for a while. No threat of ice for us. After two days of sub-zero temperatures, it warmed up just in time to dump lots of rain. Tomorrow, the sun returns and the temps drop again ... lol!

Christmas Blessings! to you and your family.

[TexasGreg]

Well ... I use icons for decoration purposes; they are beautiful artworks. And, they also have a teaching function. :)

[AnAmericanMother]

I was raised in the Episcopal Church (South), back when the regular Sunday service was Morning Prayer and Communion was offered once a month.

Of course, at that time it was a VERY long service -- the entire Decalogue was chanted (and the congregation was expected to respond (in chant) after each Commandment: "Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this Law." And if the kids weren't yet confirmed, they marched them out during the Offertory.

When the Episcopal prayerbook was revised in the '70s, it became much more consciously patterned on the Catholic model, with the Eucharist becoming the standard Sunday service. That started the trend of the Episcopal churches moving away from the Protestant fold and over towards the Catholics.

We started going to a High Episcopal parish after we got married 27 years ago (it was the church around the corner.) One thing led to another, and when ECUSA went stark staring mad last August, we joined our local Catholic parish.

[RnMomof7]

Well ... I use icons for decoration purposes; they are beautiful artworks. And, they also have a teaching function. :)

But then your church did not come out of the Reformation and that was after all my point ...

[TexasGreg]

But then your church did not come out of the Reformation and that was after all my point ...

That's a debatable issue. The United Methodist Church's predecessor denomination, the Methodist Episcopal Church, was formed due to political pressures surrounding the American Revolution and the need for ordained clergy at the close of the war. Following the Treaty of Paris in 1781, the Church of England refused to provide Bishops and ordained clergy for the new United States, so in 1784 John Wesley took it upon himself to provide that by consecrating Coke a Superintendent ("Bishop") and sending him to America to establish the Methodist Episcopal Church. So, in a strict historical sense, you're correct ... the United Methodist Church today has it's roots in the Church of England, but broke off due to political, not theological, issues.

However, the Methodist reform movement is very much a part of the Protestant Reformation in the sense that John and Charles Wesley, and most of the Methodists in their day, were Arminians. While certainly a hybrid denomination -- incorporating elements of Protestantism and Catholicism -- it is correct to locate the Methodist Evangelical reform within the theological stream flowing from the Protestant Reformation. Otherwise, in terms of church government (i.e. Episcopal polity) and Sacramentology, we're certainly more Catholic than we are Protestant.

[RnMomof7]

Wesley was an arminian / a protester against the reformation doctrine not Catholicism ...it was a step back to Rome .

Wesley was no friend of Reform Doctrine, ask Whitfield , sorry

[NYer]

Don't forget the rest of the discussion about Luther on this subject:

Thanks!